Who Owns the Chapel?

January 31, 2012 By Timothy Dalrymple

The property battle between denominational bodies and the local churches that disaffiliate from them is heating up—and the list of congregations that suddenly find themselves homeless has grown longer.

Less than two months after the Georgia Supreme Court ruled in favor of the denominational bodies in two church property cases in that state, a county circuit court in Virginia ruled that seven more congregations must leave their properties to the Episcopal Church (see “Court order,” Jan. 28). Two, Truro Church in Fairfax and The Falls Church in Falls Church, are among the most storied Episcopal churches in the country.

The seven Virginia congregations had disaffiliated from the Episcopal Church because they were concerned it was no longer committed to biblical and Anglican orthodoxy—as evidenced by its divergence from the global Anglican Communion on the matter of gay ordination.  They affiliated instead with the Anglican Church of North America.  ”The core issue,” according to Rev. John Yates, rector of The Falls Church, is not physical property but “theological and moral truth and the intellectual integrity of faith in the modern world.”

Note: This was first published in World Magazine’s early February issue.

John Yates of The Falls Church

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Three Course Corrections – An Open Letter to Mitt Romney

January 31, 2012 By Timothy Dalrymple

Dear Mr Romney,

We’ve only met once, but we have mutual friends — and in the strange and often surprising interconnectedness the internet provides, I write in the hope, however humble, that this letter will actually find its way into your hands.  I’ve admired you ever since the SLC Olympics.  I supported you throughout your governorship.  I still desperately wish that you had won the nomination in 2008, and I’ve done what little I can do to support you through Evangelicals for Mitt.  So I write this letter as a supporter.

I believe you will win the nomination.  If the polls are correct, today you will win Florida.  From there, you will be tough to beat.  There are three points on which I want to encourage you.  You may well win the nomination — and even the White House — whether or not you do these things.  But I believe they increase the likelihood of your nomination, and of your election, and that they’re important for you personally and for us as a nation.

Point #1: It’s never, never “all about the economy.”

It’s practically a ritual every two years for Republicans to suggest that this election will be all about the economy — and it’s certainly a pattern every two years for Republicans to rediscover just how important social conservatives really are to their coalition.  It’s by and large the social conservatives who have caused the wild swings from Bachmann to Perry to Cain and now to Santorum and Gingrich.  Most of them are not ardently opposed to you.  They’re just not yet convinced — and you can convince them.

Of course, it’s no mystery why you chose to focus on economic matters.  Fixing the economy is the most important issue for American voters right now, and it happens to be your area of greatest expertise.  You also know from previous races that your credentials as a social conservative are viewed with some skepticism.  Besides, much of the opposition you face amongst conservatives is simply cultural.  You’re a northeastern elite, and, well, can anything conservative come from Boston?

Of the remaining candidates, you will most effectively represent social conservative values.  Why?  For one thing, no politician can represent social conservative values in the White House if he cannot win the White House, and not a single one of your remaining opponents stands a realistic shot of winning the general election.  For another, your friends tell me that you are sincerely committed to the cause.  You will support pro-life and pro-family legislation, and name judges to the bench who support the same values.  But it’s hard for me, as your supporter, to make the case that you really do care about protecting the unborn and preserving the traditional family structure when you rarely reference the issues, and then only perfunctorily.

Don’t get me wrong.  Your campaign team, not unreasonably, believes that when the conversation is focused on the economy, you win.  And as you’re attacked for your wealth, your overseas investments, and your many years as a leader in venture capital and private equity, you can and must become an explainer and defender of capitalism itself.  Americans by and large (and through decades of attacks on capitalism in the academy) have forgotten the virtues of the free market and have let the “economic virtues” that support the marketplace deteriorate.  In private settings, you radiate a Reagan-like optimism and confidence in the power of the free market.  You need to show you’re a Reagan and not a Rockefeller Republican, that you want to transform our political picture and not merely manage the mess a little better.  So, yes, you can and must sound a clarion call to industry and creativity, responsibility and self-reliance, thrift and stewardship, even as you build a movement for limited government and a private sector less burdened by the tax- and regulatory-structure.

But you also need to deliver a signature speech on abortion — and make it the best pro-life speech in recent memory.  The speech should begin by explaining why, in the light of the death of your dear relative (Ann Keenan) to an illegal abortion prior to Roe v. Wade, your mother and your family in general took a “personally pro-life but not willing to impose that view on others” position; then it should confess the error of this position (as you have done before).  Evangelicals love confessions, but few know the context of your earlier stance.  Then the speech should explain your conversion in 2004 and the strengthening of your pro-life convictions in the years that followed; it should walk us through your reasoning on the tougher life-related decisions you faced as Governor; then, most importantly, it should set forth a stirring vision for an America that is good and decent and compassionate enough to protect the most innocent and vulnerable of human lives.

This is not asking you to pander.  It’s asking you to give a thoroughgoing account of your deepening conviction that we must defend the unborn, and a vivid demonstration of your passion and your willingness to lead on these issues.  When it comes to rallying religious conservatives, now and in the general election, abortion is the single most crucial issue.  As long as there is a clear contrast between you and Obama on abortion, you will win the support of many religious moderates for whom abortion is the one non-negotiable issue.  Muddy that contrast, lose the election.  Make a profound pro-life case, and many religious conservatives who want to support you will be relieved that they can do so in good faith, and they will swell your ranks swiftly.

Point #2: Don’t give up on evangelicals.

Some very public evangelicals have very publicly denounced you and your faith.  Your cherished religious community, the community in which you were raised by loving parents, in which you’ve raised your own children, the same community that you have served so tirelessly over decades, was slandered as a “cult” by an influential pastor.  You, ergo, were portrayed as a cult member.  Many evangelical leaders defended this choice of wording, and few have spoken out even against the more obvious efflorescences of anti-Mormon bigotry.  To make matters worse, an entire generation of conservative evangelical activists/leaders gathered in Texas to rally around some candidate other than you.  So it would be perfectly understandable if you felt that you had little incentive — or no stomach — for further engagement with evangelicals.

This, however, would be a mistake.  Even with Santorum, Perry and Gingrich in the race, you won over 40% of evangelicals in New Hampshire, and you’re on course to win over thirty percent in Florida.  Of those evangelicals who oppose you, few do so passionately, and most are compelled not by prejudice but by misinformation about your record and your positions.  In other words, many evangelicals support you now, and many more are willing to support you if they can be convinced that your stances on abortion, the family and religious liberties are sincere and impassioned, and not simply assumed for political convenience.

Yet your outreach to evangelicals has to change.  While a signature speech on abortion would go a long way, evangelical leaders will feel more comfortable with you when they spend some time with you.  Young evangelical leading lights, president and deans of seminaries and colleges, pastors of mega-churches–I know many who want to see you win, many who are willing to lend their assistance if only you would ask.  Your campaign is leaving an awful lot of assets unemployed in the evangelical world.  I’d encourage you, in as many states as possible, to hold informal, off-the-record gatherings with religious conservatives where they can earnestly express their concerns and you can show them the sincerity of your convictions.  Will there be some leaks and uncomfortable conversations?  Yes.  But the more comfortable with you they become as a person, the more they’ll trust you as the steward of their values and principles in Washington.

Point #3: Own your faith.

This may be the most important point of all.  Your discipline is the stuff of legend.  And after your father’s campaign for the presidency ran off the rails when he referred to a “brainwashing” on the Vietnam issue, the exercise of an extraordinarily meticulous self-control has become a pervasive theme in your family.  But these things are largely responsible for the “Romneybot” moniker.  Your behavior seems a little too programmed, too scripted, and therefore artificial.  It makes it hard for many people to connect with you.  And although Richard Land meant it in a different (and incorrect) sense, I believe he was inadvertently onto something when he said you’re “not Mormon enough” for many evangelicals.

You love God.  You strive to follow God’s leading in your life.  Although we would differ on the metaphysics of Christ’s nature, in practice your personal relationship with Jesus Christ looks an awful lot like the one that evangelicals enjoy.  These are not things that northeasterners typically wear on their sleeves, and your campaign is understandably reluctant to shine a spotlight on your Mormonism.  Evangelicals would grow more uncomfortable with you if they thought you were going to be making an argument on behalf of Mormonism throughout your presidency.  So you should not engage in apologetics.  But they will grow more comfortable with you if they see the depth, the vitality, and the heartfelt authenticity of your relationship with God.  They will grow more comfortable if they better understand your pastoral experience (let’s call it what it is) as ward bishop and stake president.  You have rich experiences in missions and preaching and pastoral counseling, and in all these ways you connected with ordinary people, ordinary workers, in the struggles of everyday life.

I think you need to let go.  There is wisdom in self-discipline.  But there’s wisdom also in simply being who you are and trusting the consequences to God.  It’s time to let your faith flag fly.  Be clear that it will not be your role to defend Mormonism or advance its interests.  But be clear too that you love God sincerely and strive to follow His will in everything you do, sometimes failing, sometimes succeeding, sometimes bringing healing into broken families and communities.  These things humanize you.  They make you relatable.  And the people will not support you with fervor unless they feel that they know you, heart and soul.

I’m praying that God will guide and sustain you, as well as all of the GOP candidates and our current President.  This is a tough country to lead, and we need a leader of humility, integrity and wisdom now more than ever.  I believe that you are the right man for precisely this time.  Time will tell.  Sincerely,

Timothy Dalrymple

Filed Under: Christian Approach to Politics, Election 2012, Mitt Romney, politics, Politics and Economics, The Obama Presidency

The Travesty of the Texas Evangelical Summit: And Four Lessons It Teaches

January 19, 2012 By Timothy Dalrymple

We all know the outlines of the story.  Alarmed by the increasing likelihood that Mitt Romney would top the GOP ticket for 2012, several conservative evangelical leaders — James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, Donald Wildmon, head of the American Family Association, and Gary Bauer, former president of the Family Research Council — hosted a meeting of the evangelical old guard at the home of Judge Paul Pressler in Texas.  Before the meeting, invitees were asked by Wildmon whether, if the group coalesced around a particular candidate, they would be willing to put aside their individual preferences and support the candidate that emerged.  Each of the remaining candidates had a surrogate who made his case.  After several rounds of voting, the group voted 85-29 to support former Senator Rick Santorum.

All attendees were to refrain from commenting on the meeting for 24 hours afterward.  Tony Perkins — whom I like, by the way — was designated as the group’s spokesperson.  Let’s review what has happened since then:

  • Predictably, the spin war for presidential campaigns could not wait 24 hours. Campaign surrogates and other attendees were leaking like sieves well before 24 hours had passed, trying to shape the way in which the meeting and its outcome were framed.  Not exactly a sterling representation of Christian character.
  • Perkins described the outcome of the meeting as an “endorsement” of Santorum. Whether he misspoke, or whether they had never clarified the right language to use, the Gingrich campaign swiftly objected, and Perkins was forced to walk back that language.
  • Red State’s Erick Erickson, who attended (now he’s an evangelical leader?), slammed the Perry surrogate for being unprepared and the Romney camp for calling everyone bigots.  Erickson (just trying to be helpful, of course) advised the media to write about the Texas conclave that “Romney will probably become the nominee…with even less good feelings between evangelicals and him than John McCain had.”  Consistent with his behavior so far in this election cycle, this was again a terrible misrepresentation of what happened.  There was an appeal to avoid the kind of anti-Mormonism or mean-spiritedness that was evident from the likes of Robert Jeffress at the Values Voters Summit, but Team Romney did not “accuse them [those in attendance] of being anti-Mormon bigots.”  That said, one can hardly blame the Romney camp for being unenthused about a meeting whose implicit — but very clear — purpose was to rally behind someone not-Romney.
  • David Neff, editor-in-chief of Christianity Today, evangelicalism’s most storied publication, criticized the Texas gathering for “playing kingmaker and power-broker.” The implications here are pretty scathing: “When evangelicals are confined to a partisan kennel, it is easy to think we are exercising real power. In fact we are, to use the old Soviet phrase, serving as ‘useful idiots.’ Christianity Today founder Billy Graham discovered this had happened to him. Out of an abundance of enthusiasm and good will, he tried to aid Richard Nixon in his campaign. Later, when the Watergate transcripts revealed the true Nixon, Graham realized he had been used.”
  • News leaks that Dobson, after praising Santorum’s wife to the high heavens (and she does sound wonderful), referred derisively to Calista Gingrich as “a woman who had been a man’s mistress for eight years.”  While his statement is true, it’s hardly winsome to condemn a candidate’s wife for her sexual history, and it’s another example of how different camps are leaking details from the meeting to serve their own purposes.
  • Worst of all (or maybe not), it’s not clear that the non-endorsement from the Texas gathering will really make much difference, as Gingrich, not Santorum, is the one who has closed on Romney since the meeting. It’s possible that the leaders in attendance (and not everyone in attendance was really a leader) have not yet fully mobilized their resources and their constituencies, or that the effect has not yet registered in polls.  But so far, Santorum’s support in South Carolina has barely moved a blip.

In short, the meeting’s been a public relations nightmare for conservative evangelicals, and it’s not clear that it accomplished anything whatsoever.  From the above, I take the following lessons:

  1. If you jump into the middle of a food-fight, you’re going to get slimed. What’s especially irritating about this whole story, for someone who cares about the reputation of conservative evangelicalism, as I do, is how predictable this was.  Of course the campaigns are going to leak selectively and fight over what the meeting meant — and your rules and reputations will be collateral damage.
  2. The older generation of evangelical activists don’t have the influence they once did.  As a former strong-willed child, and father to a strong-willed child, I have a lot of gratitude for the ministry of James Dobson.  I also have a lot of respect for those who fight for the causes of life and family within our political structures.  Those are critical things.  But as several attendees noted, the crowd was quite old and gray.  This is not because — as Erickson said — younger evangelical leaders have abandoned politics.  It’s because (a) their approach to political and social change is different, and because (b) they’re less alarmed by the prospect of a Romney presidency (more on this below, #4).  Many young evangelical thought-leaders are pursuing social change through cultural instead of political channels, and even those who work in political channels are seeking to move conversations rather than elect conservative saviors.  Rather than choose a single “evangelical-approved” candidate, make the moral case to all candidates in all parties and move all the candidates toward your point of view.  Move the whole darn conversation.
  3. The older generation of evangelical activists are victims of their own success.  The truth is, the Dobson generation (and Robertson and Falwell and D. James Kennedy and…) did succeed in moving the conversation.  The current crop of GOP candidates is testament to their influence.  There is not a single pro-choice candidate; there is not a single candidate who favors gay-marriage (though some think it’s a state issue).  Each of the candidates has attended Faith and Freedom Coalition events and spent many hours interacting with evangelicals, hearing their concerns, and sharing their views.  This is a massive victory for the evangelical old guard, but they want to go further and choose the GOP nominee.  They need to understand where their role as ministers and Christian educators stops, and where they could only move forward by becoming political organizers and forfeiting their religious authority.
  4. The younger generation of evangelical leaders are not feeling the same anti-Romney hysteria as their elders.  Evangelicalism is a differentiated entity.  Rick Santorum won the evangelical vote in Iowa (32% compared to Romney’s 14%) but Romney won the evangelical vote in New Hampshire (31% to 23%).  Northeastern evangelicals are more inclined to support Romney.  While I haven’t seen any statistical study of this, my experience suggests that younger evangelicals too are more inclined to support him, or less inclined to view his Mormonism as a problem.  I know several young evangelical leaders who were invited to attend the Texas meeting, but declined because they supported Romney and felt no need to unite behind a non-Rom.  Of the most ardent despisers of Romney (and I deal with many), I would say 3-to-1 are over the age of 50.  Younger evangelicals are also less bothered by the prospect of a Mormon in the White House.  They know more Mormons, they’ve interacted with Mormons as co-belligerents against abortion and gay marriage, and they appreciate Mormon family values.

Such, at least, are the lessons I take from the Texas meeting and the shambles it’s become afterward.  I have great respect for many who attended.  But I don’t think the meeting was a wise decision in the first place, and I think it represents a way of seizing political power that’s fraught with problems.  Change the culture and make a prophetic case to the whole political structure; tell people why you prefer the candidate you do; but when you become a partisan political organizer, you forfeit a lot of the religious authority you possess.  This is why I think it’s important to keep Christian political leaders, and Christian religious leaders, separate.

Filed Under: Election 2012 Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Perry Quits – His Smartest Campaign Move Yet

January 19, 2012 By Timothy Dalrymple

Is ending the Rick Perry campaign the smartest thing the Rick Perry campaign has done?

I don’t want to kick someone when he’s down, but Perry’s decision to retire from the race for the presidency — if CNN is to be believed — seems like the first time his campaign made the right decision on a major call.  Perry entered the race with a lot of favor and a lot of credibility, as a very successful governor of the nation’s largest red state, and an abundance of wealthy supporters and organizational support.  I was an early critic because I thought he mixed faith and politics in the wrong ways, and I heard from many people protesting that “he’s the real deal.”  Well, maybe he is the real deal, but it never came across.  Through missteps, malapropisms and memory misfires he quickly squandered all the good will that was lavished upon him as the first truly credible Romney alternative.

The “true conservatives” were clamoring for Perry to quit before South Carolina, in order to focus the religious conservative vote in either Santorum or Gingrich.  Most were encouraging him to support Gingrich, since they think Santorum does not have the organization or staying power to mount a serious challenge to Mitt.

All this scrambling to get behind Gingrich seems absurd to me, for the simple reason that Gingrich is, by a long shot, more inconsistently conservative than Romney.  This was apparent even before his brazen attacks on venture capitalism.  Gingrich is also spectacularly self-destructive.  If you thought that the Iowa attack ads brought out the snarling ego-beast in Newt, wait until the attacks are coming hard and heavy from the Obama campaign and all its most powerful allies.  Hitching your wagon to Newt is like hitching your wagon to a time-bomb.

Former staffers for Newt say that they used to write down every single thing Newt asked them to do, and delegate them for execution.  Then they’d come back and say, “We did X, Y and Z.”  Newt would ask, “Why’d you do that?”  He had just been throwing out ideas.  Eventually they learned that they shouldn’t actually do anything he asked them to do unless he asked at least twice.  This isn’t the worst quality, of course, but it’s consistent with a guy who just doesn’t have much in the way of discipline and self-control.  Support for Newt dropped by 20-25% overnight when Republican primary voters got a better look at him; you think it’s going to go better when the American electorate as a whole gets a better look?

I would have more respect for Perry if he endorsed Santorum.  Santorum’s a better fit with his social conservative values, and with his faith-ful approach to politics.  But the pressure to rally behind Gingrich is a lot stronger.  Perry’s endorsement will almost certainly not change the outcome in Florida; time will tell whether it will make a difference in South Carolina.

Filed Under: Election 2012

The Life of Faith in Haiti: An Interview with Kent Annan

January 12, 2012 By Timothy Dalrymple

As we’ve reached the two-year anniversary of the Haitian earthquake, yesterday we published a reflection on the persistence of faith in suffering from Margarita Mooney at the Black, White and Gray blog, and today I wanted to speak with Kent Annan, who is actually engaged in the day-to-day work of rebuilding Haiti through his ministry, Haiti Partners.  Kent’s the author of After Shock and of Following Jesus Through the Eye of the Needle.  You can find more about his writing at www.KentAnnan.com, and you can follow him on twitter: @kentannan.  First I’ll show a video about the recovery, and then I’ll post the interview.

* * * *

1.  What is the status of the recovery from the earthquake?  Are people still living in the camps?

About half a million people are living in some form of tent camps or temporary structures. So recovery progress is obviously far, far too slow for each of these boys, girls, women, and men. Excruciatingly slow, two years later. At the same time, many have moved out of those temporary shelters. Building is happening. Projects are underway. So absolutely, the progress is unacceptable with so many people having to accept living in circumstances nobody should have to endure. But the recovery isn’t in a vacuum. The circumstances were very hard before the earthquake. I’m asked this all the time but still struggle to answer succinctly: some progress, too much suffering still, much more progress needed. I guess that says it.

2.  How is the faith of the Haitian people holding up?

Like with any group or society, there’s not just one monolithic response. On a general level, many people still go to church every Sunday, and there is lots of other continued evidence of how important faith is in so many people’s lives. I can speak a little more about my friends and colleagues, the people I work with regularly. And I see their faith still sustaining them, still central in how they understand life, receive grace and strength. This past September we started a new scholarship program, that we’re calling Micah Scholars. We’re partnering with three Haitian seminaries and providing full scholarships for five students in each, as well as extra support and mentoring. So with this question, my mind goes to these 15 students, who are all in their twenties and early thirties. They’re remarkable young men and women. They’re in circumstances as challenging as almost any in the world. They’re engaged in leadership for their churches and communities. They’re studying hard. They’re excited about the future, without any delusions about the challenges. One more thought, to play off the wording of your question, is that one thing I often find the faith of Haitian people holding up is my own faith.

3.  Have American churches basically forgotten about it?  Or are they still engaged?

We have great church partners with Haiti Partners — though of course we always want more because there are so many vital needs and opportunities to help. Haiti is an important focus for me, so sure, I wish the American church would be even more involved (well, maybe not always, but as long as they’re involved humbly, thoughtfully, and respectfully). Realistically, though, there are also many needs in American communities, not to mention in places all over the world. My general advice is, it’s good to help out in a crisis, but I think it benefits the people you’re trying to help, as well as your own church, to have a focus that lasts, that doesn’t just jump from place to place, from headline to headline, from trendy cause to trendy cause, every year or two. This lets a relationship develop. It means there can be back and forth. It can break us out of thinking of others as simply victims, and of ourselves as kind of saviors–and then, with a longer commitment, we start to realize how we’re all in this together. That has implications for their lives and for our own lives. That’s my pitch for staying engaged: you’ll help more, and you’ll be transformed yourself in ways that are challenging and transforming.

4.  What can we do now to help?

This ties into the previous question. My bias is to invest in education, because ultimately the lasting change in Haiti will of course continue to come from Haitians, not from outsiders. But providing quality education opens new approaches, cherishes each person’s dignity, and is empowering. So I think there’s a tremendous opportunity to partner (with your time, money, talents) with organizations who have been in Haiti for a good while, who know what they’re doing, who are very respectful of Haitians in their approach. And this can happen through supporting education, business investment, medical work, environmental and agricultural work, and many other ways. So the biggest way to help is to follow your heart–and also follow an approach that has commitment and rigorous thinking behind it.

5. Any stories that have touched you in Haiti recently?

Little Darenka, who is about eight and lives near the epicenter of the earthquake, comes to mind right away. Recently I had a fun morning with my colleague John and some students from one of our elementary schools. We were making a video about our work. We were filming a few clips with these students. Making videos is slow-going work, shooting these ten second scenes over and over. It can drive you crazy…unless you all have fun with it. So we had fun. We laughed a lot. I had to pick someone quickly, on the spot, among this handful of young students, who would have to speak a couple of lines of English. Not an easy task. As we talked with them, Darenka quickly showed self-confidence and humor. I asked her if she’d be willing. She said yes. Being willing to do something in front of your peers in a Haitian elementary school is just like an American one: your friends are impressed, but also tease you. (I have a daughter in kindergarten, so I get daily reports.) Darenka was fantastic. (Okay, brief pause. Watch this 2-minute video and I dare you to not have your heart won over by Darenka’s smile!)

Okay, back to the story. So she does a great job. But as much as Darenka’s story is moving, as I think about the long-term development in Haiti, the story that excites me even more of this school she’s attending. Maxandre, a Haitian friend I’ve known for nine years, started it. It was his dream to serve his community this way, and it took a lot of entrepreneurial hard work and persistence to make it happen. We saw he was doing a great job, so started partnering with him. The earthquake struck. This town, where my wife and I had lived, was absolutely devastated. I tell a number of stories from this community in my book After Shock. Well, this school was basically destroyed too. But because of people’s generosity, we were able to rebuild it, which was an important sign of hope in the community during that year after the earthquake. School reopened for the last school year, and they’re halfway through a second year in the new building. Remarkable, really, when you saw how much was still in rubble. And the structure isn’t even the most important part. What’s vital are are the teachers and kids in this school. They’ve received resources. The parents are making great efforts to get them ready each morning. The teachers have received a lot of training from us, so they can keep getting better. They’ve beat me in dance offs, with the embarrassing proof right here on YouTube. Together, teachers in Haiti and donors in the U.S. and people like us who have the privilege to work as a bridge in the middle, get to see this school alive with learning and laughter, even when life continues to be hard in the surrounding community in many ways.

This school–started with Haitian initiative and innovation, helped along by Americans who wanted to partner respectfully, serving 140 children like Darenka — this to me is an inspiring story after the earthquake. Darenka’s smile will and should touch our hearts, but behind it is all the hard work and partnership to serve her in the best way possible. She’s a child of God, and that’s what she deserves. Reflecting on the past two years, my heart is still broken by a lot, but it’s also filled with gratitude and inspiration as I get to see Darenka being given an opportunity to thrive — and to think of how that will ripple out through her community and even her country.

Okay, if you didn’t follow my advice earlier and watch the 2-minute video, really, no lie, you should do it now because you’re day will be poorer for not seeing Darenka’s smile, especially one toward the end, as well as the joy and hope of these other friends and colleagues. We should be unblinking as we look at suffering, but also as we look for hope.

* * * *

For more information about “After Shock,” see this video:

Filed Under: Suffering Tagged With: , , , ,
« Older Posts